I'm not gonna lie, looking at that page is like peering into this site's past: It's one of the last remaining outposts from an era plagued with fandom wars, natter, and bashing. I'm not saying the page should be locked or purged, but it should be closely monitored. My suggestion is to cleanse the page of hyperbole/natter and attach some warnings about it in wiki comments. If it doesn't work out, more drastic action should be taken. It's sad to see pages locked or purged of examples, but fortunately, it seems this page can be saved before it's too late.
I guess it all boils down to yet another discussion about this wiki's goals and purpose: Are we an informal chronicle of literary and artistic tropes, or a community of fandoms analyzing and discussing works? Well, Fast Eddie seems to be leaning towards the former opinion, as implied by the site's goals (Forgive me, I'm new here, so I'm not sure how to pothole/wikiword to articles on other namespaces):
1. The wiki is about tropes used to tell stories.
2. We will be accessible and fun to read.
3. The wiki is for reaching the reader.
4. In order to be accessible, we cannot be locked into a specific fandom's viewpoint.
(That last one refers to opinions in the main page.)
Rules are rules, and if most of this site's moderators agree, they're probably for the better. Gannon Banned, Internet Backdraft and related "tropes" are inherently flame and natter bait that have little to do with the site's goals. Now that I think about it, it's probably more efficient to just give the page an example sectionectomy as a fanspeak term. What do you guys think?
edited 18th Aug '12 9:22:07 PM by AmateurPolymath